CODOH "is a strange world": The Fetzer Fiasco

A few days ago, conspiracy guru James Fetzer visited the CODOH Revisionist forum, likely encouraged by his friend Nick Kollerstrom. Kollerstrom (aka 'astro3') had earlier discussed Fetzer's defense of open inquiry into the Holocaust in an academic journal. Fetzer arrived to reinforce and restate those beliefs to, what he expected to be, a receptive audience. Instead, Fetzer was met by an unsatisfied Hannover/Hargis, who sought to bully and cower Fetzer into openly advocating denial, something Fetzer was unprepared to do. This lead Fetzer to, in just a few days, come to conclusions about the CODOH forum and its moderator that HC readers might enjoy.

This blog's main purpose is to document the fiasco that followed, in addition to providing some more information (in the way of emails) about the events. Screenshots have been taken of all posts, which became necessary as Hargis later deleted the entire discussion. They can be released if the authenticity of any part of this blog is put into question.

The debacle also conveniently happened at the same time that Hargis was given a regular monthly column for Smith's Report (see page 13).


After being challenged ferociously on several occasions by Hannover for failing to take up denial itself (as opposed to encouraging open discussion of its principles among academics), Prof. Fetzer posted on June 29, 2011:

Those of you who participate here know the players. Hannover strikes me as a rather self-centered, narrow-minded and manipulative person, who does not play well with other children. I am doing what I can to advance the cause of freedom
of speech, freedom of inquiry, and freedom of thought. Laws against Holocaust denial are simply absurd. If the Holocaust was real, then research will sustain it; and if it was not, then we all deserve to know. That, I believe, is an unexceptionable statement that encompasses everyone on both sides of the question. While I am not conducting Holocaust research myself for the reasons I have explained, I am open-minded about it and support the right of everyone to conduct research on complex and controversial historical events, especially those that have profound effects on how we look at the world and interact with one another. Those who are rational with respect to their beliefs make appropriate changes in what they accept, reject, and hold in suspense when new hypotheses and new evidence becomes available to them. Unless the world is willing to consider the evidence you discover, there is no chance that it will have an impact. I am going to continue to do what I can to increase acceptance of research on these subjects, without concern for how they fit with the preconceptions of those who are actually engaged in Holocaust research.

CODOH poster ‘The Warden’ then joined Hannover’s demands for Fetzer to openly endorse and advocate denial, in addition to criticizing him for his “excuses.” Fetzer responded:

The world needs more reason and less dogma from both sides of the Holocaust debate, it appears. I have stated my role and what I am attempting to accomplish. This self-congratulating attitude for your heroics is something else. I am going to do what I can in support of freedom of thought, of research, and of speech. And it does not matter to me if The Wardens and the Hannovers of the world think that is enough to satisfy them. I will not be bullied. And I find this attitude bizarre from those who pose as champions of freedom of inquiry! What a crock!

What a crock indeed, as all of those familiar with this blog are aware.

A few hours later, CODOH poster ‘SilenceIsALie’ came to Fetzer’s assistance, writing:

by SilenceIsALie » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:16 pm
(…)
Trying to cram the truth down people's throats the way I have in the past and the way people like 'Hannover' also seem to do is not a very effective tactic I have found, people tend to be far more open to accepting the truth when they find it for themselves.

People like Dr Fetzer open minds to the issue and get them thinking for themselves, and I'm sure many will end up in the 'denier' ranks eventually once they actually start thinking for themselves.

So I personally would like to thank you Dr. Fetzer for your contributions and for standing up for the truth in the most effective and practical manner available to you. I truly wish there were more fine educators like yourself out there rather than all the indoctrinators that are too common these days, perhaps then my distrust of the education system wouldn't so bad.

Poster ‘SevenUp’ also defended the CODOH visitor, saying that Fetzer was braver “than most of us” and should not be so criticized by anonymous posters. Fetzer wrote back:

by James H. Fetzer » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:05 pm
Right! I'm supposed to be "in fear" of being associated with Holocaust research, when I am ALREADY being attacked on that basis. As I have now explained several times, I can do much more to promote research on the Holocaust by defending the principles of freedom of inquiry than by conducting Holocaust research of my own. Is that ALSO too subtle a point to be understood here? Let each contribute in ways most appropriate to us.

I believe in historical research on complex and controversial subjects. I have chaired four national conferences and published three collections of expert studies on the death of JFK. I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth and edited its first book, organized its first conference, and produced its first DVD. I co-authored a book on the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone--and I have done hundreds of interviews on JFK and 9/11.

As for the Holocaust, there are persons better qualified than I to undertake that study. I have addressed Zionism and exposed the abusive use of phrases like "anti-Semite" and "Holocaust denier" in multiple venues, including of course my letter to ISIS and the blog I created about it, which is actually generating significant exchanges by way of its "Comments" than I am encountering here (although I am sure it is taking place elsewhere on CODOH).

I have done all of this using my own name, while those who are taking exception to my efforts--which, in their views, apparently do not reflect the "true believer" attitudes they have embraced in denying the Holocaust (in part or in whole)--but I do not understand why they cannot identify themselves by their real names. If I am the one who is in fear, why are they the ones who are hiding behind internet handles to obscure their own identities?

And I really expected more serious replies than the kind of pettiness that has been manifest on this thread. The Swerdlow case offers a challenge to academicians and scholars, who can easily understand why what he has done is so grossly unwarranted and abusive. I would have thought you would welcome someone who is willing to stand up and be counted in a matter that should matter as much to you as it does to me. This is a strange world.

Hannover returned to the discussion, saying that Fetzer showed an “appalling lack of courage for your convictions.” Hargis continued:

by Hannover » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:27 pm
(…)
As for your fall back tactic on the use of pseudonyms, it should be obvious. It is simply a way of protecting ourselves, a classic historical method, aka: 'nom de guerre'. Perhaps you should try one.

To you I simply ask, why would you post at a 'holocaust' discussion and debate forum and then run from discussion, debate, and questions put to you which based are upon statements that you made? No one forced you to post here.

I find your work on 9/11 to be spot-on, and I commended you for it. Ultimately though, in totality, you are little more than the typical academic hypocrite of the type you to criticize. I'm afraid you have the cart before the horse, you will get nowhere until the Jewish Supremacist power base, that being the 'holocaust' lies, is stripped away.

If you refuse to discuss the 'holocaust' tales, or even ask questions about it in order to learn, then perhaps you should go elsewhere

- Hannover

Fetzer, not to be pushed around by a library assistant, steadfastly responded:

by James H. Fetzer » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:51 pm
Why am I not surprised? I was waiting for Hannover to push his weight around. How many of you find this tolerable? This thread, in case Hannover has not noticed, is "NEW ETHICAL DAMNATION - BOOKS TO BE PULPED!", which I would have thought is well within the scope of discussion on this forum. His complaints might have value on another thread, but this is not a thread devoted to specific findings about the Holocaust, where I am no expert. So I am contributing what I can to THIS SPECIFIC THREAD. I frankly do not know enough about what you may or may not have discovered, even though I have the impression it is substantial. I would have to make my way around past research and evaluate the evidence for myself. But my role is not to become one more among those who question the Holocaust but to defend research on it and other controversial subjects for reasons I have elaborated more than once here. And I am learning that a site devoted to "Open Discussion on the Holocaust" is not really about "open discussion" at all but seems to function more as some kind of vanity forum for Hannover, The Warden, and others to promote their opinions and denigrate anyone who deviates from them. It is obvious that I had Hannover pegged correctly from the beginning. I really had expected more from a forum devoted to this subject. But, I am discovering, it is really of, by, and for an assistant librarian at UCLA!

‘SevenUp’ came back to Fetzer’s aid:

by SevenUp » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:21 pm

Hannover wrote:However, I will not let you come in here and avoid honest and straight forward questions put to you which are based upon your own statements. You have shown an appalling lack of courage for your convictions.

This is an absolute crock. What is the sense of allowing one person, 'Hannover', to insult posters at will.

‘SevenUp’ continued, becoming increasingly critical of Hannover:

the rule that 'when challenged on something that a participant posts, that participant must respond or leave the thread.' is absurd in theory, and it is not applied fairly in practice. In particular it is used against posters that the 'administration', in particular 'Hannover', disfavors.

If you participate in any forum you'll quickly discover that a favorite tactic of the Zionists is to ask a leading question, demand an answer, and then repeat the question over and over, insulting the poster for not answering. This tactic quickly reduces the thread to an exchange of insults and irrelevance. Just as it has done to this thread . You can go to any holohoax thread on randi.com and see this tactic employed over and over and over ad infinitum. It is not appropriate for the forum administrators on this forum to employ this very tactic.

Forced to defend one of the lynchpins of his moderating policies, Hannover responded:

I think it's a great rule. It prevents anyone from making statements they can't back up. That's what real open debate is about ... IOW it says put up or shut up. Of course those that can't back up what they claim would indeed look to discredit what is a very logical, time saving guideline. It just the opposite of what you claim, it cuts to chase, thus avoiding being vague and the all to typical 'yes it is, no it isn't'.

It's literally impossible to ask questions about a claim until that claim is made. You're example makes no sense, SevenUp. Please read the guidelines.

here's a case in point:
SevenUp, show us how it's used "against posters that the 'administration', in particular 'Hannover', disfavors." No one put those words in your mouth, you said them. Now back them up.

And, you are off topic.

- Hannover

‘SevenUp’ correctly pointed out the immediate case:

by SevenUp » Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:23 pm
Wake up ! Moderator 3 just stated that Fetzer had broken the rule about responding to ‘questions’ and therefore should ‘man up’ or leave the thread. Are you really this unaware of what is happening in this very thread ? I’ll spell it out – Moderator3 is telling some you disfavor to leave the thread.

Less than ten minutes later, Hannover dressed up as Moderator 3, deleted SevenUp’s post, and commented:

by Moderator3 » Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:32 pm
SevenUP:
Attacks on Hannover are meaningless when you fail to addressing the specific points he makes in this thread. He has no qualms about directly debating someone based upon what they specifically say, why should you?
You can PM him if you wish. I will make sure that channel is open for you.

‘SevenUP’ has not been seen on the Revisionist forum since.

Poster “Hans” also responded to Hannover:

by Hans » Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:01 am

[quote="Hannover"]
here's a case in point:
SevenUp, show us how it's used "against posters that the 'administration', in particular 'Hannover', disfavors." No one put those words in your mouth, you said them. Now back them up.

That's an easy challenge, I can assist SevenUp here. For instance, just a few days ago two postings of mine at the bottom of this screenshot were silently and without notice removed (the deletion comment by Moderator3 of Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:32 pm does not refer to any of them, but to a previous posting which was also deleted) even though - or rather exactly because - the postings provide a lot of important information for the topic thread and show Hannover's misconceptions. And this is just the tip of the ice berg.

Ray Barren's last posting in the "Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz" was likewise deleted and his account banned even though it was written reasonable and on the point:

Re: Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz
by Ray Barren » Fri May 27, 2011 2:23 pm

Hannover wrote:"Concerning Zyklon-B, remember, the storyline says that in Auschwitz/Birkenau, Jews were gassed at Kremas II & III (the largest of the alleged 'gas chambers') at the rate of 2000 per batch, every 20 minutes (said Auschwitz curator Franciszek Piper), for days on end. The shysters are forced to use the 20 minute length per 2000 in order to meet the numbers they claim were gassed. Another example of them painting themselves into a corner with their own lies. As the expression goes, 'once you lie, you must continue to lie.' "


I appreciate Hannovers effort to try to educate me. He says that the "storyline", citing Auschwitz curator Piper, uses the solid figure of 2000 victims every 20 minutes. This is not true as one would know reading revisionist interviews with Piper.

On the number of people to be gassed, Piper told Desjardins


Q: Regarding Krematorium II at Birkenau, what was the gas chamber floor area and number of persons exterminated per application?

A: 210 square meters; 1,000 - 2,000 persons were killed per application depending on the size of a given transport.
http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nddd/ndddausch.html


I said something similar to Dr. Piper of the range of victims. I also said that if one looks at the number of unregistered prisoners taken into the camp, the total would usually be around the figure of 1000. Piper also told Desjardins that the Zyklon B was in the gas chambers for twenty minutes, not that the whole process itself took twenty minutes. So there would be no Jews waiting outside the gas chamber during the actual process. If there were more victims to be gassed, there was always the several other crematorium and bunkers in Birkenau with their own gas chambers.

Hannover says that the Zyklon-B once taken out of the gas chamber would still be emitting deadly gas for hours. I have searched this thread looking for information on the deadliness of such gas when exposed to open air environment, but can't find anything. Also, the pellets could easily be sealed back into a container, tossed into water, or otherwise disposed of so as to be harmless.

This posting was deleted by moderator3 (who sounds very much like Hannover by the way) with the absurd explanation that he is "completely unfamiliar with the story you're trying to defend". Anybody with just rudimentary knowledge about Auschwitz can tell that the exact opposite is true. Also since when is being "unfamiliar with the story" a reason for deletion and banning anyway? What is the "story" can also to be a matter of debate and shouldn't be decided by a moderator who may be bloody wrong too, in particular when highly biased and in strongly in favor of Revisionism as is the case here. The reality is that Ray Barran just showed Hannover's misconceptions, and this is obviously why he was deleted and banned.

Clearly there is a pattern here.

Moderate and seemingly more level-headed revisionist Kingfisher also chimed in against Hannover, writing:

I find it quite outrageous that Ray Barren should be banned for the post quoted above by Hans. Especially when Hannover is allowed to get away way with immoderate language like "shyster" "laughable", "liars" and a great deal else that I can't be bothered to look up.

The critical comments were apparently too much for Hannover to take, as the entire discussion with Fetzer was deleted by the afternoon. The original statement by Moderator3 (aka Hannover/Hargis) went as follows:

by Moderator3 » Thu Jun 30, 2011 2:06 pm
We have decided that there was so much spam by the likes of James Fetzer, Hans, Kingfisher, and others; plus so many off topic posts, subject changing, use of strawmen, intentional disinformation, intentional disruption, namecalling, and duplicity that is was necessary to get back to the basic content. We have decided to clean-up the mess and delete and save those posts.

The CODOH Revisionist Forum, BTW, has received many complimentary comments from registrants and outside readers for the various responses to the posts by those mentioned and others, hence I do this with regret. However, we must think outside of personalities and egos.

Thanks to all.

Those "many complimentary compliments" almost certainly exist only in Hargis' imagination, as no posters posted such in the relevant thread. The post was then edited shortly thereafter to the following:

by Moderator3 » Thu Jun 30, 2011 2:06 pm
We have decided that there was so much spam by so many: off topic posts, subject changing, use of strawmen arguments, intentional disinformation, intentional disruption, name calling, and duplicity by those who oppose freedom of speech and freedom of research, that is was necessary to get back to the core content of this thread. We have decided to clean-up the mess by deleting and saving those posts for posterity.

The CODOH Revisionist Forum, BTW, has received many compliments from registrants and outside readers for the various responses to the offending posts, hence we do this with regret. However, we must abide by the agreed upon guidelines which provide a place for unhindered open debate.

And a special CODOH thanks to Dr. Fetzer for his courageous stance. The world is a better place because of men like him.

Thanks to all.

Obviously the original statement listed the offending spammers (none of which were Hannover, of course) and did not bother to thank Fetzer for his “courageous stance.”
What brought this flop in Hannover’s thoughts on Fetzer, originally an ”appalling lack of courage” to now having the world as a better place due to his courage? Perhaps he started to feel some heat from CODOH founder Bradley Smith, who lets Hannover moderate the forum at his own will.

After Prof. Fetzer was made aware of Hargis’ long history of censorship by Andrew Mathis, Fetzer forwarded an email to Smith while the CODOH discussion was still underway (Thursday, June 30, 2011 at 8:58 am):

My case is a sterling example, which everything you have told me further confirms. I can't imagine having a forum for "open debate" when those who dissent are crushed as quickly as possible and run out of town on a rail. This guy is not a truth seeker.
Warm regards,
Jim

Bradley Smith responded at 1:06 pm that afternoon to Prof. Fetzer:

Jim Fetzer:
I'm outside the loop here. Busy. I wrote you a few minutes ago, the computer went down, you may have gotten the message but maybe not, so here I am again. Today I'll be out of office.

You can probably surmise that we will end up having a different story about Mathis/Codoh than Mathis has. For myself, I don't want to bother with the guy. He's been obsessed with Hargis and CODOH for ten years or more. The last time we spoke, maybe six, eight, ten years ago he was so obsessed with Hargis that it occured to me that he was in love, I suggested same, Mathis hung up and I have been relieved of his presence from that day till this.

You sound perfectly rational. We may have done something wrong here, I don't know. Hargis is not perfect, but he has managed the Forum since the begining (sic), it is very demanding, there is no one else online who has don't (sic) anything like what he has done. Again, he's not perfect, I'm not perfect, CODOH is not perfect, but I am doing the best I can with a minuscule budget, against orgs with million-dollar budgets, and a professorial class that is unwilling to take seriously the right, the necessity, for a free exchange of ideas on the H. story.

You appear to be an exception (like I say, I am outside the exchange for now) to this generality and I would like to find out what is going on. Can't today. I have to go to the other side.
But with re to Mathis, you will have to deal with the little love-sick puppy without me.
--Bradley

(I understand I should erase that last comment, but for me Mathis has been a
Hopeless case from the beginning. It occurs to me only now what has occured to me before: the next time I'm in his part of the country that I should ring him up, invite him out for a beer or a hot dog, something, so that we can talk face to face. I think that if we could get together, useing "live" language, that my sense of who, what he is would come round, and we would discover that we could actually talk. The problem with email is that there is no tonal value to the words. Something is always lost.)
Anyhow. . . .
--B

There are some important things to note from Bradley’s email. First, he admits that Hargis runs the forum. Not much of a surprise to our readers, but to this blog’s knowledge it is the first time Smith used his actual name. Secondly, Smith shows himself as generally clueless about Hargis’ actions, as such abuses are FAR from the exception. Smith is also unclear why he allows Hargis a free hand at the forum. Simply because Smith has sympathy for Hargis should not provide the latter with the ability to censor the CODOH form, discrediting the organization’s supposed stance towards free speech. One does not have to be perfect to be able to reasonably run and moderate a discussion forum, especially in the name of "open debate." Finally, Smith said that he would question Hargis about the exchange. Given the time of Smith’s email (1:06 pm) and Hargis’ subsequent deletions and explanation (2:06 pm), Smith obviously was the deciding factor, and likely also influenced Hargis to retract his earlier statements about Fetzer’s courage and attempt to make nice, at least for public consumption. Still, everything is far from okay in denier land...


Congrats on the column, Jonnie!